Michael Rosefield wrote: > Hi, > > 1) My thoughts are that an act of euthanasia would be more likely to > 'push' the consciousness of the patient to some hitherto unlikely > scenario - any situation where death is probable requires an improbable > get-out clause. The patient may well find themselves in a world where > their suffering is curable/has been cured. Might even be brains-in-jars > time. > > 2) I think that neural systems possess a quality called something like > 'graceful decline;' the brain can undergo a lot of random damage before > its function is significantly affected. But once it does start to go > down the toilet, I'm not sure what the conscious experience of that > would be. Presumably it would be something like Alzheimers or a pretty > bad case of the mornings, and everything would appear to be rather > scattershot and disconnected. From the perspective of the victim (I > would say 'patient' again, but let's face it - this is one mean > scenario!) I wonder if this weakens the connection to this particular > context, and they'd find it more likely to move in the direction of > universes in which the process is reversed or nullified.
You seem to implicitly assume that the subject's consciousness is a single, unified "thing" that can move hither and yon in the Hilbert space of the universe. But the multiple-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, on which the above scenarios are based, says that the physical basis of consciousness splits almost continuously into non-interacting subspaces. Are we to suppose that your other brains in Hilbert space are empty of consciousness until you "move" to them? Brent Meeker > > > 2008/10/22 razihassan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > > Hi all > > First post! I'm happy to have found this list as much of it coincides > with what I've been thinking about in the past few years, esp. after > reading about quantum roulette and realising, as many others have > done, that this leads to quantum immortality. > > 1) Lately, I've been thinking about euthanasia and the QTI. > Previously, being somewhat of a liberal in these matters, I've always > held that, assuming proper checks and balances (BIG assumption), > euthanasia was ok, as it relieved the suffering of the patient as well > as their loved ones. > > If QTI holds then "killing" the patient won't work (from the patient's > frame of reference), so you're not actually alleviating their > suffering. You may of course be relieving the suffering of the > patient's loved ones (from THEIR pov) but I think we're on dangerous > ground when you consider whether or not you should kill someone solely > for their' families' sake. > > So, should QTI-ists be campaigning against euthanasia, not because of > the traditional 'life is sacred' objection, but because it simply > doesn't work? Can anyone see an alternative - based perhaps on > anaethetising the patient indefinitely? > > 2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain > cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine > pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator. > > Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of > the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells, > since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level > of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always > maintain the physical brain? > > If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that > all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for > as long as our brains are physical? > > Razi > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
